The tool worked correctly and as intended, but due to a bug it did not work correctly nor as intended.

To be fair, that quote in the original article could have more context. By "The tool" they meant "AI-assisted support tool"[1]; perhaps they meant that the issue was not an AI hallucination inherent of the tool, but a fixable bug.

[1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28202858-meta-ai-ag-...

▲

nvme0n1p1 4 hours ago | parent [-]

In that case, the statement is so meaningless as to be useless. Why should we care how Meta splits up their microservices? The tool still failed. They just want to redefine the "tool" as something else, anything else, to avoid having to admit something negative about their precious AI.

> The LLM correctly generated tokens according to user input, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address

> Nginx correctly handled the user requests according to the HTTP standard, however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify the email address

▲

csallen 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, I think many of us are curious and enjoy hearing more details about how and where bugs like this occur. What's wrong with that?

	▲	nvme0n1p1 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'd love to read a proper technical post-mortem, but this obviously isn't it. It's a carefully-worded statement from a lawyer meant to minimize liability and reputational damage to the company.
	▲	albedoa an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There is nothing wrong with that, and nobody is saying there is. In fact, it is exactly what is being requested here!

▲

theptip 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sounds like they are saying the agent did not malfunction, and this vuln could have been triggered by a human support agent too.

	▲	dd8601fn 15 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think they’re blaming a tool function so as not to admit the overall agent process was shit. But it’s irrelevant, outside of PR. We know at least THREE bad components to this process and they were constituent parts.
	▲	trehalose 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It probably could have been, but how likely is that compared to with the AI agent? I'd assume (and I'm ready to look like an idiot if I'm wrong) that the humans are trained to send the verification code to the email address on file, rather than any address the client asks them to. I'd certainly assume most of them are more afraid of the consequences than the AI is.

▲

TZubiri 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I get the joke, but it's a relevant nuance that the new code, the chatbot, did not have 'the bug'. I still think that the mistake and head that should roll should be the one that published the chatbot.

But it's important to acknowledge that there was a 'bug' in an underlying tool and not in the chatbot, and still PIP/fire those responsible for publishing the chatbot and exposed an otherwise internal tool to the public, and not those that introduced the 'bug' to an internal tool.